Results 51 to 75 of 370
-
08-10-2015, 08:17 PM #51
-
08-10-2015, 09:35 PM #52Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 1,572
I'm no attorney either, but reading this as a layman it sure seems that the "no other form of mechanical transport" ties directly to all the other motorized uses listed prior, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that the intent was tied to prohibit motorized uses. I'm with Jono on this one, time to push a legal challenge.
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the admin- istration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.
-
08-10-2015, 10:47 PM #53
Already referenced this once, but here's a link for anybody who missed it (e.g. jono):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevro..._Council,_Inc.
Again, good luck with your lawsuit.
Conundrum hit the nail on the head above. Frustrating state of affairs.
-
08-10-2015, 11:31 PM #54
Why are mountain bikers ALWAYS defined as "out of control" when going around blind corners? Especially in the backcountry? This has to stop. A hiker might think we are out of control, but that doesn't mean we are. I do my fair share of backcountry exploration where I see nobody, and I can't recall ever ripping around a blind turn, especially on a trail I've never ridden. Its called self preservation.
-
08-11-2015, 06:21 AM #55I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
08-11-2015, 07:32 AM #56Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- United States of Aburdistan
- Posts
- 7,281
Yeah, perception vs reality. Not sure how you can convince a hiker we are not out of control, when we are in control. But c'mon, there are plenty of bikers ripping around scaring the shit out of hikers that should be slowing down when they have crappy line of sight. I see it all the time in Utah.
-
08-11-2015, 08:06 AM #57yelgatgab
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- Shadynasty's Jazz Club
- Posts
- 10,248
-
08-11-2015, 08:17 AM #58
Idaho isn't Utah and these aren't suburban trails. Especially in the backcountry portions of Idaho it is perfectly normal to go spend long periods of time seeing absolutely no one if that's your objective. The bikes that used those trails for 30 years didn't impact their wild status then and they don't impact it now.
If organized protest is your thing you could frustrate a lot more people in nearly legal fashion by holding a mass ride and blocking motorized access. Turn a nice piece of double track into two singletracks and illustrate the need for separate access for bikes. After all, the Blue Ribbon Coalition lobbies for mountain bikes, too; they just want to share our trails. Only problem is you'd go to a lot of trouble just to stop what, three ATV's?
It's not just that no one cares about mountain bikes, it's that no one cares about that whole area. It's an easy pawn.
-
08-11-2015, 08:24 AM #59
Way out in the backcountry?
Sure, that happens sometimes on local trails that get ridden a lot, but every single rider I know that's doing big rides that are far from civilization isn't pushing their limits in that context.
But ultimately, the point of Wilderness is to preserve the landscape. There is zero scientific evidence that bikes degrade the landscape any moreso than horses or a group of backpackers. These are public lands we're talking about, and just because someone has a personal grudge against a particular mode of transportation should not mean they get to impose their will on that user group. I fucking hate horses and the people that ride them, but I put up with them because that's party of living in a structured society.
The Wilderness Act was founded on principles of preservation, but at least in this context, it's being used as a tool to create a private playground for a specific curmudgeonly segment of the population.
-
08-11-2015, 08:28 AM #60Hucked to flat once
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Idaho
- Posts
- 10,953
Those who are not comfortable in the woods, probably because they don't spend much time there, are usually those who are edge. Going to a "wilderness", where things are "wild", is truly their big adventure where anything "wild" could happen. It's the same people who don't understand the difference between conserving nature and preserving it. They have a dream of preserving but they can't define it. Ultimately they conserve but not in a scientifically based way, just a way that makes them feel good. It's all for personal reasons. If hikers or bikers really cared about protection, we would seek preservation. It's generally about selfish reasons of access and user experience that works for that person. Hikers don't want bikers there because it reduces their experience, not because they can point at any particular study that is truly unbiased that says bikers do more damage to the land. I'm as selfish as anyone because I want bike access because I enjoy riding bikes.
I would understand these laws more if mining and horse outfitting wasn't given exceptions. I can point to many examples of torn up land from those two parties than anything I've ever seen from bicycles. Snowmobiles and skiers setting off slides that rip out swaths of trees yet that is never mentioned. It's all politics and selfishness now.
BWC is a classic example. Fourth of July Creek Trailhead is a busy access point for both hikers and bikers. It's the easiest way to some of the lakes in the area for hikers. In Simpson's infinite wisdom, his compromise was to allow bikes there but not on the two remote trails that bikers wanted. I got into a heated conversation with an older hiker from Ketchum who was pissed that BWC allowed bikers there and it would increase user conflict. I asked why there would be increased user conflict and she said because the other closures would push more cyclists there (it probably won't because those riding the cool trails will not want to go to 4th of July). I asked if she would have been happier had access to 4th of July be closed to bikes and the other trails left open and she said no that BWC was about conserving land. It's just talking in circles with some people on this. She went on to say that the wilderness bill didn't need to be messed with. She was none too happy when I said that if we stopped "messing" with bills in 1964, that black people would have a very difficult time voting in the US but luckily we review laws as our country evolves and the wilderness bill is allowing some things that truly do not protect conservation values.
If I held the wand, I'd close off all access in the name of preservation until the user groups could come up with a compromise that wasn't worded ambiguously when written over 50 years ago.Last edited by Conundrum; 08-11-2015 at 08:41 AM.
-
08-11-2015, 08:48 AM #61
A couple of thoughts from someone that worked in federal wilderness-management agencies, including a short term in DC. First, and most obviously, snowmobiles are banned in wilderness areas. It'll help discussions to keep the apples and oranges straight.
Second, mining and horses were deeply established before the 1964 Wilderness act, and more importantly they bring huge, HUGE influence to politics. There were mines and horses, and cattle in those areas long before bikes even existed. IMHO if bikers don't try to make friends somehow with ranchers or at least be neutral, they won't get into wilderness. Ranchers kick ass in politics, and if they care about bikers at all, they don't particularly want bikers there. But pointing at stock use in the wilderness isn't going to gain any traction with politicians.
Mining - bikers will have to work pretty hard to match the money to buy politicians that mining owns. $$ talks, bikers walk.
IMHO, if you aren't going to be happy with ninja rides, then a lot less outrage and confrontation and a lot more historical comprehension and friendliness is probably in order. Not you nesseccarily Conundrum, but mtbrs in general.
It's always been politics and selfishness.
-
08-11-2015, 08:54 AM #62Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- United States of Aburdistan
- Posts
- 7,281
I think my point is getting lost. If hikers have many bad experiences on a suburban trail, or anywhere, they are going to want to get away from bikers: into the wilderness. It doesn't matter where bad experiences happen. Arguing to hikers that bikers go slower in remote areas is valid, but not going to do much to convince them of anything. Bikers actions on an everyday basis effects our access everywhere.
On the other hand, I'm beginning to think that even if every biker was super polite, a small subset of hikers would still want to ban us.
-
08-11-2015, 09:06 AM #63
-
08-11-2015, 09:06 AM #64Hucked to flat once
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Idaho
- Posts
- 10,953
Sorry, you are correct...I was thinking of areas in BWC that up until last week, where sleds had created some slide paths. Just got fired up and started thinking about experiences in that particular area. My mix up-guess it goes along with keeping motors out of wilderness and contradicts what I was trying to say. I agree with everything you said. It fits directly with my first post in this thread. Lobby dollars and influence win.
Being fourth generation Idahoan whose family is deeply rooted in cattle ranching, I'm fully aware of the history of politics of land and commerce here. Our governor wears pleated wranglers and ropers to formal events. I've had personal conversations with Bethine Church about her husband and the work he did and why it looks the way it does.
I'm actually taking the ninja ride route. I've called and written my legislators and spoke with them in person in favor of the BWC Wilderness with cherry stem access on two mountain bike trails. Not a single senator or rep held this bill up to discuss mountain bike access. I don't have the resources to sway anyone political nor the time or knowledge on how the get ranchers or miners to stick up for me. IMBA didn't get shit done on this one nor have I seen much around here where they have. ICL did nothing but support Simpson so another organization I've lost interest in. Blue Ribbon got what they wanted which wasn't what cyclists wanted. I don't see a single organization right now that can effectively lobby for mtn bikers or that would want to. We're a small niche that needs to buddy up but it doesn't seem as there are many groups that want us.
Last comments on this one, black pajamas for my rides.
-
08-11-2015, 09:19 AM #65
That's where I'm at, too. It's time to clear up the ambiguity one way or the other because as it stands now entirely too many people have a warm fuzzy feeling about W when in reality it's being implemented as nothing but a privatization of public land. Either we get the trails back or that fact should be clarified once and for all so we can start responding appropriately to all future W proposals.
I'm inclined to lay a lot of blame on IMBA at this stage, particularly after reading the nonsense from Tom Flynn linked earlier. Anybody care to defend them? If there's any reason not to write IMBA off completely I'd like to hear it.
-
08-11-2015, 09:25 AM #66
http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/
"Effectively" remains to be seen, obviously, but the objective and the approach so far looks good: they've skipped the gofundme/kickstarter fees by running their own campaign and they're all volunteer. So far so good.
-
08-11-2015, 10:18 AM #67Banned
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- where the rough and fluff live
- Posts
- 4,147
yeah, you and the Toaster pretend at legal chops, but neither of you has actually shown them, it's just your TGR Street Cred that makes you "authoritative" on this and any other subject where legal interpretation and practice are implicated.
who cares whether someone "is an attorney," anyway? there's a mess of lawyery pretend-experts on TGR, and I'm saying they pretend at legal expertise the same way they pretend at MTBing or skiing expertise. formalists, memorizers of others, parrots, fearful of originality and deferential to authority. ironically, they also claim to be progressive and chide people like Tony Scalia for deference to precedent.
whenever you would like to show me how I'm wrong, jurisprudentially speaking, I'm all ears -- you, or Toaster, or any other "lawyer" on TGR.
I'm not "on" anything, Gilligan. classy of you to suggest to the contrary though. sorta like stuckie, knowing nothing, and hiding it behind arrogant projections. shit, for that matter, you're like kidwoo or rideit on that practice. it's all about YOU, bubba. keep the focus on YOU and YOUR greatness.
two thoughts here:
(1) if people who give two shiite moslems about this topic of MTB access to trails/terrain weren't so fuckin' naive and hopeful, they'd realize that the gentrifying yupsters who work to push for MTB banishment have (a) time, (b) money, and (c) energy to use their time and money, toward the banishment efforts. they work cocktail circuits, dinner party circuits, facebook circles, email barrages, and general in-person banter to their advantage. if anyone thinks they're not confronting money & power when they confront MTB-banners, they're just pathetically naive.
(2) who are these kickstarter funds going to fund? what lawyers, using what strategies?
-
08-11-2015, 10:39 AM #68
rotfl. I don't have any legal chops. My point was (over your fucked-up head) that he wasn't making arguments that would hold up.
who cares whether someone "is an attorney," anyway? there's a mess of lawyery pretend-experts on TGR, and I'm saying they pretend at legal expertise the same way they pretend at MTBing or skiing expertise. formalists, memorizers of others, parrots, fearful of originality and deferential to authority. ironically, they also claim to be progressive and chide people like Tony Scalia for deference to precedent.
whenever you would like to show me how I'm wrong, jurisprudentially speaking, I'm all ears -- you, or Toaster, or any other "lawyer" on TGR.
I'm not "on" anything, Gilligan. classy of you to suggest to the contrary though. sorta like stuckie, knowing nothing, and hiding it behind arrogant projections. shit, for that matter, you're like kidwoo or rideit on that practice. it's all about YOU, bubba. keep the focus on YOU and YOUR greatness.
-
08-11-2015, 10:47 AM #69Banned
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- where the rough and fluff live
- Posts
- 4,147
you have some massive inflatable cojones, chingador.
sadly, you deflate them by deflecting onto your accusations about "impotent fury," but please don't let that stop you from pointing out how I was wrong, instead of continuing to be like Stamwell Windelius with the psychotropic Rx accusations and the mental health insinuations! it's quite impressive, and it even encroaches on the Bizarreus Kevaneus practice. lawyer up for your copyright and trademark infringement defense, you self-styled genius!
now, with your bricolage of barratry out of the way -- did you have any way of showing how I'm wrong, jurisprudence-topic specifically?
-
08-11-2015, 11:12 AM #70
-
08-11-2015, 11:15 AM #71
Wilderness is a bunch of outdated bullshit for a bunch of reasons, but it's too romantic and easy for most people. The nuances of use and care are not at the top of the mind for most people and too expensive for the FS anyway. It's sad.
But we also see in places where the FS isn't legally required to ban bikes or snowmobiles they just go an do it anyway. Wtf are these people being taught?
Less access and more forest fires and less trail maintenance because of some fake idea of what is Wild. Ugh.
And creepy, why do you still have an internet connection?
-
08-11-2015, 11:17 AM #72
If you can recognize the fact that I wasn't making any arguments at all I think you'll be closer to understanding. The law isn't going to be decided on TGR but we'll all decide whether or not to get off our individual asses and take on Creaky's undercover power brokers. Mounting the challenge means heads we win and tails we fight harder. As-is IMBA is being used.
The next proposed Wilderness in Idaho is probably Scotchman Peaks. My local IMBA chapter lists the hikers-only group advocating the loudest for that as an affiliate organization so I expect the (formal or informal) tally of total "supporters" of a W designation will include all members of the bike club. Which might even be ok if they restricted the W boundaries so not to impact biking but we see how well that's worked out.
-
08-11-2015, 11:19 AM #73
-
08-11-2015, 11:26 AM #74
Not reading a lot of TGR lately? Or just not familiar with how Wilderness is done east of the Cascades?
-
08-11-2015, 11:34 AM #75
Bookmarks